Printable View
This is exactly what made me make the change. Like i lost 5 games from relevant life gain from Swording an opponent's Goyf in one night. The next week when i brought PTE, it was amazing for me. PTE a Tombstalker and then just killing them then instead of in 2 more turns.Quote:
Originally Posted by DragoFireheart
@Finn:I don't see how swording a big relevant threat isn't a time walk. The get to untap, draw a new card, and are at a comfy new life total.
The cool part about taking an extra turn via timewalk is that the opponent does not also get an extra turn. You are giving the guy life, not an untap, draw, attack, main, and discard. Or rather, you are, but then you get all that too.
@drago: I dont even know what to say to your random conjecture. It feels like dancing with jello. When did I invent slanted scenarios?
Come on... you're right that in not ALL situations It's like that, but in more situations than others, I've had to swords some dumb fat creature with lethal on the board, and it not become lethal again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
And i forgot who made the argument a few pages ago, but i agree in the fact that STP works well in Zoo decks with more utility creatures and artifacts etc.
But in most builds, that now run PoP and Fireblast, they want to win now and not in a turn or two. My build is WAY permanent heavy and I'd rather win now than in a turn or two. I don't like giving my opponent even the slightest opportunity to draw that EE or Humility or Sower to fuck my shit up.
I don't remember ever making up a favored situation for swords. The two situations talked about in recent posts have been a turn 2 creature and a nought. Both of these point to swords being the better card( arguably) . I would love for my turn two confidant to get pathed.
The situations made up are primarily saying that path is a better card when you have an alpha strike on your side, a blocker on the other side, and they are gonna win the next turn. You are proably at this point in the game either because you have already pathed something, and they are out pacing you on mana development or you saved your path to not give someone a mana boost and they are beating you with that creature.
If your first example on how a card is better uses a comparason based on an ichorid matchup I think you need to check your logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Are you trying to be arrogant? Please get off your high horse and assuming that you right, us wrong.
No one is saying that Stp is a bad card or that it can't work in this deck. Someone brought up the point that Stp is better Vs Goblins, since giving them mana is a bad idea. All I am saying is that theme and mechanically, Path makes more sense to put into a deck that relies on using burn as reach, and Stp is counter-productive.
I've played this deck with both and came to appreciate path as my answer of choice. It can be really hard to get to 20 against the current counter top decks (Hard but doable pretty much every game.) But getting to 25 when you swords their goyf? If they draw sowers and more goyfs and a counter or two it's gonna be a hell of a lot harder than if you had just given them a basic land.
Now, swords DOES have a lot of advantages over path. Swordsing bob is a lot less painful than pathing him. It's also a lot easier to swords something like lackey or LoA or an opposing Wild Nacatl. I think the argument ends up being how much you care about tarmogoyf, where you think the line is between how much life you are willing to give them compared to when you'd rather give them a basic land, and how many decks there are in your meta that it's hard to get to 20 against.
In my meta I like Path right now, particularly with my current build, but I'm gonna test swords again since I haven't tried it for a few months now.
I specificly have not mentioned any counter top decks in any of these arguments for a reason. Countertop is the worst deck you ver wan to give mana. And they play bob, which is never good to path over swords. Them with extra mana means they will chain cantrips into a countertop lock and keep you out of the game.
You never want to path their creatures early and even late game giving them mana to play Around with is a bad idea. This is one of those tricky situations where both cards are defendable but one is actually far superior.
Something else I'd like to point out in this whole STP/PTE argument.
When do you ever Exile something with less than or equal to three toughness?
Most Zoo lists play at least 8, at least 8 burns spells that deal at least 3 damage to creatures. I usually save my PTE for a fattie, and let them chumpblock to live, or burn a weaker creature away. I'm not saying you'll always have a burn spell to deal with a creature, but it makes perfect sense. And in the cases i just stated, PTE is better than STP.
Sure you might have to Exile your opponents turn one Hippie on occasion, but that's the risk you take running PTE over STP. And i don't see the problem with it. Better than having to waste an Attack Phase with Kird Ape to even stuff out again.
In my testing, the counter top deck having 6 mana is no different from them having 7 mana. The "Extra mana to fool around" is in my experience not too relevant once they've made their land drops, and between their tops and constant cantrips they almost always make all their land drops anyway.
Amen for that. It doesn't even take testing to figure that out. And it's not like your PTE is gonna, ya know, resolve anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryLIKEALION
The difference between 6 and 7 doesn't mean anything but the difference betwen 3 and 4 is huge. Oh and don't forget 2 and 3, I heard that matters alot, god forbid your mana screwed opponet lands a creature that you need to kill.
I heard there is more than the endgame when comparing two cards you guys seem to completly skip over the whole gameand jump right to the alpha strike. If you read kver your arguements you will see that you have said the same thing kver and kver and are specificly looking at the point in the game where you either alpha strike or lose the game.
Lavafrogg has a point. A landstill player wouldn't Path my dude because I was slightly landscrewed.
I subsribe to Finn's argument. Finn is at no point assuming anything. He has stated and extended his point repeatedly and made a (from my point of view) clear case in favor of Swords, while you try to make a case for Path with ... Dredge?Quote:
Originally Posted by DragoFireheart
Was this aimed at me? Bc i said, "Sure you might have to Exile your opponents turn one Hippie on occasion, but that's the risk you take running PTE over STP. And i don't see the problem with it. Better than having to waste an Attack Phase with Kird Ape to even stuff out again"Quote:
Originally Posted by lavafrogg
How is that assuming i have an alpha strike in play? And i also just addressed that i have burn spells for just that job. Yeah you might not have one, but that happens, It's Magic.
Edit: A Landstill player would PTE a Gaddock Teeg :P
The statement was made in response to every situation where people have said path was better. Why would I reply to someone who is agreeing that swords is a better card.
I think the problem here is about the phases in the game where people want to play the game.
It seems that those in favor of path want to play it later in the game, when the drawback starts to become negligible whereas people for swords want to play it at any point in the game.
So, I guess it then begs the question of what you want to use it for. I don't see people arguing that swords is better in the late-"er"-game (well, at least I hope that's not what happening), but rather which is better for the deck overall. And in that case, those looking at swords vs. path want it for the late-"er"-game anyway, in which case path is better.
Seeing how zoo is an early game deck don't you think the better earlier game card should be in the deck?
I am saying that there are cases where any card can be the perfect card to have in your hand. That is any card. In this specific case it is swords against path and in more cases swords is the superior card. Even in a deck like zoo swords is still the better card.
Swords is clearly a better card in the early to mid game and it is debatable and situational which is better in the late game. Seeing how every game has an early game and zoo wants to see as little of the mid and late game as possible I'm still confused as to how this is debatable.
Because it's not clear what's defined by "Early-game," "Mid-game," and "late-game," and it's also very unclear the pros and cons for each card at each point in the game, and how that factors in the overall power level of each card.
Early game: turns 1-2
mid game: turns 3-4
late game: turns 5-6
the defining factor in the keyword "turns" being the amount of lands in play therefore the mana cost of the spells you canplay or the amount of spells you can play.
If landdrops are one of the most important factors defining the game state then advancing your opponents game at little cost to them is a "bad thing". Life total affects the game state only in that the last life point must be intact for you to be in the game.
Using my definitions, path is horrible in the early game, bad in the mid game and still effects the game state in the late game. Swords is constantly good throughout the game and is only worse in corner cases.
hi all,
Currently I am trying to make a semi-Budget version of Zoo, but need help with some slots and sideboard
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Kird Ape
4 Keldon Marauders
3 Grim Lavamancer
2 Bloodbraid Elf
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Magma Jet
4 Seal of Fire
4 Rift Bolt
3 Lightning Helix
2 Swords to Plowshares
2 Fireblast
3 Wooded Foothills
2 Windswept Heath
2 Taiga
2 Plateau
1 Horizon Canopy
7 Mountains
This gives me 3 slots uncounted for
Any help would be appreciated